Inhabitants of Verona v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 16 March 1904
• Citation: 57 A. 797,98 Me. 491
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF VERONA v. BRIDGES.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

57 A. 797

98 Me. 491

INHABITANTS OF VERONA

v. BRIDGES.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 16, 1904.

(Official.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County.

Action by the inhabitants of Verona against Stephen D. Bridges. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions overruled.

This was an action of debt for a balance of tax assessed against the defendant for the year 1900.

At the conclusion of the testimony the justice presiding directed the Jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $1, being the amount claimed, to which ruling the defendant seasonably excepted on the ground that neither the assessors nor collector were shown to have been elected by ballot as required by statute, that it does not appear that the collector gave bond, and for the further reason that the warrant to the collector is insufficient.

The record for the town meeting for the year of 1900 was annexed to the bill of exceptions.

There was no record or other evidence of the election of assessors or collector by ballot, nor of the giving of bond by the collector.

A copy of the warrant to the collector was also annexed.

The action was duly directed in writing by the selectmen, and the taxes duly assessed except in the above particulars.

Argued before EMERT, SAVAGE PEABODY, and SPEAR, JJ.

O. F. Fellows, for plaintiff.

L. B. Deasy, for defendant.

PEABODY, J. This is an action of debt to recover the balance of a tax assessed against the defendant for the year 1900.

A verdict for the plaintiff was directed by the presiding justice, and the defendant excepted on the grounds that neither the assessors nor the collector are shown to have been elected by ballot, that it does not appear that the collector gave a bond, and that the warrant to the collector is insufficient.

The first and third grounds of exception are expressly waived by the defendant's counsel.

The second exception does not apply to this action, which is brought directly by the town, under Rev. St 1883, c. 6, § 175. Rockland v. Ulmer, 87 Me. 357, 32 Atl. 972.

The counsel raises a new point in his brief, namely, that the board of assessors which assessed the tax does not appear to have been elected at all. He relies upon the report of the town meeting introduced in evidence to show the election of a board identical in only two names out of the three with that which assessed the tax; that Whitmore, Bassett, and Heath were elected assessors, and Whitmore, Bassett and...